USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[PointOfViewGun]

Bruh. This thread is about Democratic party and Democratic primaries. So you feel like discussing Trump is the only way to avoid realization that Democratic front-runners are inadequate?

Your attacks on Sanders supporters and the value of Sanders' candidacy is quite the topic of this thread. Why you wanna throw free jabs at them but run away when your words are scrutinized? Can you not explain what you think you accomplish?

[Ludicus]

He sure isn't one. That's not to say he isn't a Socialist (He describes himself as a Democratic Socialist if I recall) but there's a big difference between socialism and communism.

Exactly. Socialist-democratic socialist.
In the UK, nobody ever accused Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy and Sir Keir Starmer (competing to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader) of being communists.
Just for comparison, let's hear what they say.
1- Keir Starmer
"Our radical socialist tradition must remain at the heart of Labour.
Today’s inequalities and injustices are obvious: a radical Labour government is needed now more than ever. Inequalities of every type – in power, education, health and wealth – have become ingrained in our society. The Tories’ assault on welfare has stripped people of their dignity. Labour lost the election. But the moral fight against inequality and injustice must continue. Labour can win again if we make the moral case for socialism
Starmer on Twitter." My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in power – so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve".

2- Rebecca Long-Bailey has the support of Corbynite Labour campaign group Momentum, and scores Corbyn's "10 out 10"as he launches campaign. She defended Corbyn's time at the top for bringing in radical policies and changing the debate. Long-Bailey scores Corbyn '10 out of 10' as she launches

3-Lisa Nandy.
Lisa has fought for the rights of migrant workers all her life and backs freedom of movement, higher taxes on polluters. "Tax is not an evil," she says. "Tax must first be based on principles of fairness – every time a company avoids corporation tax, or we allow a cut to the well-off at the expense of those in greater need, we chip away at the system and people’s trust in it". She said she would pursue a “progressive” taxation system which would see capital gains and corporation tax rates hiked to “match those on earnings”.

She angers moderates after accusing Tony Blair's New Labour of continuing 'Thatcher's consensus', saying "economic conservatism was a bigger priority than people", adding that it "was only under Corbyn that the party broke with this consensus".

Nandy received the endorsement of the Jewish Labour Movement for leadership of the party. Starmer was a close second to Nandy in the JLM vote, winning 45 percent of votes to Nandy’s 51%.
Lisa is also the head of the parliamentary group Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East. She has accused Israel of violating international law and human rights in the West Bank and Gaza, and has called Israel’s policies "the deliberate destruction of the hopes of a generation". Nandy has confirmed she would serve in a shadow cabinet led by one of her two rivals.
----
Unlike Corbyn, Sanders can actually win.

-----
Edit I,
And again, Read the speech- Bernie Sanders's big foreign policy speech
One our speech. Two years ago, at Westminster College. A great speech of a true statesman.

In both Europe and the United States, the international order which the United States helped establish over the past 70 years, one which put great emphasis on democracy and human rights, and promoted greater trade and economic development, is under great strain. Many Europeans are questioning the value of the European Union. Many Americans are questioning the value of the United Nations, of the transatlantic alliance, and other multilateral organizations.
We also see a rise in authoritarianism and right wing extremism – both domestic and foreign -- which further weakens this order by exploiting and amplifying resentments, stoking intolerance and fanning ethnic and racial hatreds among those in our societies who are struggling.
We saw this anti-democratic effort take place in the 2016 election right here in the United States, where we now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy.
I found it incredible, by the way, that when the President of the United States spoke before the United Nations on Monday, he did not even mention that outrage.
Well, I will. Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.

Here,


Just for comparison, Trump is a moral and intellectual pygmy.

-----
Edit II,

Paul Krugman: 'Bloomberg is not evil, but he shouldn't be in this race

But there is something when two guys that really don't have any kind of national political base are only in this race because of their money

22 studies agree: Medicare for All saves money

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely.

[Phier]

Sanders just praised Castro again apparently, so good luck in Florida mate .

[tgoodenow]

Wait till he praises Chavez and all the Venezuelans in Doral hear about it

[Lord Thesaurian]

CNN is hitting Sanders again today with the “how much will it cost” line of attack. Someone should tell moderate Dems people don’t care about debt and deficits. Trump raised the deficit 50%, and we’re not even in a recession yet. #FiscalResponsibility

[Love Mountain]

Deficits don't matter, until they do. Increasing the deficit to let rich people keep more money in their pockets vs increasing the deficit to invest into healthcare. I wonder which one I prefer.

[Cope]

Deficits don't matter, until they do. Increasing the deficit to let rich people keep more money in their pockets vs increasing the deficit to invest into healthcare. I wonder which one I prefer.

The kind of deficit needed to service a $16 tn. energy investment scheme (which is dovetailed with the kneecapping of the existing sector) will be hard not to notice. And that's just a single campaign pledge.

[Ludicus]

Sanders just praised Castro again apparently, so good luck in Florida mate .

So be it!

Bernie Praised Castro's Education System. So Did Obama.
---
Well, Obama was a Muslim communist. In his Havana speech, Obama quoted from Jose Martí's poem "Cultivo una rosa blanca", offering of friendship and peace to both his friend and his enemy. He said, "no one should deny the service that thousands of Cuban doctors have delivered for the poor and suffering", and "Many suggested that I come here and ask the people of Cuba to tear something down. But I'm appealing to the young people of Cuba who will lift something up, build something new.The future of Cuba has to be in the hands of the Cuban people".
-----
Food for thought- at the big five tech companies. Watch the interview. No further comments needed?

[Love Mountain]

The kind of deficit needed to service a $16 tn. energy investment scheme (which is dovetailed with the kneecapping of the existing sector) will be hard not to notice. And that's just a single campaign pledge.

Current or projected taxes? It's hard to calculate the costs since there are so many different parts involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 30$+ trillion over 10 years. Taxes will have to be raised a lot from the current level to account for this rise in spending.

@Ludicus

Can't watch the video atm but the graph in that thumbnail is cancer to read.

[Cope]

Current or projected taxes? It's hard to calculate the costs since there are so many different parts involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 30$+ trillion over 10 years. Taxes will have to be raised a lot from the current level to account for this rise in spending.

I'm generously quoting Sanders' own figures on the cost of the GND.

Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment toward these efforts, in line with the mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and WWII, but with an explicit choice to include black, indigenous and other minority communities who were systematically excluded in the past.

[Love Mountain]

Yeah, you are being overly generous lol. I think the most generous "centrist" study is probably from RAND. Which estimates government healthcare spending going from 1 trillion to roughly 4 trillion. Total healthcare spending is staying roughly the same, so what we are seeing is a transition from paying insurers to the government via taxes.

I didn't read the links in the study thoroughly so I don't know how they're calculating this, but RAND is pretty respectable and they're being very optimistic.

[Ludicus]

Someone should tell moderate Dems people don’t care about debt and deficits. #FiscalResponsibility

Fiscal responsibility can also be implemented though progressive taxation.Tax the rich. Read above (post 1702), medicare for all saves money. Six months ago, the Canadian government has announced regulations to reduce patented drug prices. It said would save Canadians C$13.2bn (US$10bn) over a decade, overriding heavy opposition from pharmaceutical companies.The changes are the biggest reform to Canada’s drug price regime since 1987.
On a side note, the old fiscal austerity mantra sold to us in Europe (2008) failed completely. In fact, my country was the first in Europe to cast out austerity.It's a convenient myth that the social welfare state coupled with labor protections are burdensome and discourage growth. Completely false.

[Cope]

Yeah, you are being overly generous lol. I think the most generous "centrist" study is probably from RAND. Which estimates government healthcare spending going from 1 trillion to roughly 4 trillion. Total healthcare spending is staying roughly the same, so what we are seeing is a transition from paying insurers to the government via taxes.

I didn't read the links in the study thoroughly so I don't know how they're calculating this, but RAND is pretty respectable and they're being very optimistic.

I'm talking about Sander's plans with respect to the energy sector, not healthcare. That's an entirely different area.

If the federal govt. were to spend $4 tn. on healthcare annually, that would be equal to the total amount spent currently (~19% of GDP). To put that in perspective, that's quadruple what the British govt. spent (£150 bn.) on healthcare in 2017 as a proportion of GDP (~5%)

[Ludicus]

Allan Lichtman - Wikipedia

mostly known for predicting seven of the last eight results for United States presidential elections since 1984, including forecasting the 2016 U.S. presidential election remarkably early.

An interesting article by Allan Lichtman -Why Bernie Sanders is electable (excerpts)

Our party “seems all too anxious to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and we will do the same if we nominate” an extremist for our presidential candidate. Moderates “represent the most electable area of the party.” This is not a contemporary pundit or some Democratic Party operative warning about the potential nomination of avowed Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders. It was the moderate Republican Representative John Anderson cautioning about the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

An internal memo by strategists for Democratic President Jimmy Carter showed they welcomed a Reagan candidacy in the general election, believing that they could defeat him with a negative campaign of moderates versus right wingers. Reagan won the Republican nomination and then thrashed Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and by 440 electoral votes.

Reagan then, like Sanders now, had long experience in deflecting attacks on his alleged extremism. The real problem for the Carter campaign was the lack of a compelling theme for his reelection. An internal memo had a very conspicuous blank in the space reserved for “general encompassing theme.” Whatever you may think of Sanders, among all the Democratic candidates, he has the boldest overarching theme for his campaign.

For decades, Democrats thought they had solved the electability puzzle by regularly nominating moderate and experienced candidates such as Michael Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016. But what these candidates have in common is that they would all lose to the Republican nominee.

Only unconventional “off the wall” Democrats have won the presidency in the last five decades. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were unknown figures outside the party establishment. All were at one time considered unelectable by pundits and party operatives alike.

Republicans have fared no better with moderate presidential candidates in recent years. Both John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 lost to Obama. Republicans only regained the presidency with unconventional Trump in 2016.

There is more than history as well. Current polling shatters the myth that a moderate candidate is more electable than Sanders.

I am not advocating here for the nomination of Sanders. But my advice to Democrats is to stop chasing the will of the wisp of electability. Conventional assessments of who can and cannot beat Trump will only lead them astray. Instead, Democrats must follow their conscience and vote for the candidate they believe in. That is never a wrong decision.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Fiscal responsibility can also be implemented though progressive taxation.Tax the rich. Read above (post 1702), medicare for all saves money. Six months ago, the Canadian government has announced regulations to reduce patented drug prices. It said would save Canadians C$13.2bn (US$10bn) over a decade, overriding heavy opposition from pharmaceutical companies.The changes are the biggest reform to Canada’s drug price regime since 1987.

On a side note, the old fiscal austerity mantra sold to us in Europe (2008) failed completely. In fact, my country was the first in Europe to cast out austerity.It's a convenient myth that the social welfare state coupled with labor protections are burdensome and discourage growth. Completely false.

Sanders’ plans will raise up to 3.3 trillion USD in tax revenue over 10 years. Taxing the rich will not, on its own, cover the cost of proposed programs. Everyone will have to pay more taxes - alot more, and candidates should be more honest about that so people understand what it is they are choosing.

In general, tax increases harm economic growth. The reality is it depends on what kind of taxes one is referring to (corporate tax rates tend to have a bigger impact than personal income tax rates, for example), and it takes time for these effects to manifest in the economy.

This review of empirical studies also establishes some standards by which a tax system may be judged. If we apply these standards to our national tax system, the U.S. has probably the most inefficient tax mix in the developed world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If it came down 10 points—still higher than most of our trading partners—it would add 1 to 2 points to GDP growth and likely not lose tax revenue, because the tax base would expand from in-flows of foreign capital as well increased domestic investment, hiring, and work effort. The preponderance of evidence is such that virtually everyone agrees that the corporate rate should come down, although many continue to claim, opposite the evidence,[29] that such a move would lose revenue.

We are also threatened with a fiscal cliff that would give us the highest dividend rate and nearly the highest capital gains rate in the industrialized world. Most studies do not look separately at shareholder taxes, due to the fact that they raise relatively little revenue and many countries have no such taxes.[30] However, shareholder taxes represent additional, double taxes on corporate income and therefore have the same type of detrimental effects on investment and economic growth that are now widely attributed to corporate taxes.

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evide...es-and-growth/

It also depends on who is being taxed more or less:

This paper quantifies the importance of the distribution of tax changes for their overall impact on economic activity. I construct a new data se- ries of tax changes by income group from tax return data. I use this series and variation from the income distribution across states and federal tax shocks to estimate the effects of tax changes for different groups. I find that the stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90 percent and that the empirical link between em- ployment growth and tax changes for the top 10 percent is weak to neg- ligible over a business cycle frequency. These effects are not confounded by changes in progressive spending, state trends, or prior economic con- ditions. The effects seem to come from labor supply responses as well as increased consumption and investment.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...w_jpe_2019.pdf

There is nothing inherently wrong with sacrificing economic growth for economic comfort. If Americans want to geopolitically withdraw from the world anyway, then there isn’t much benefit to being “number one” economically. I just wish politicians who propose these changes would be honest about that, especially at a time when waning US power means the days of limitless consequence-free spending will eventually come to an end.

[Love Mountain]

I'm talking about Sander's plans with respect to the energy sector, not healthcare. That's an entirely different area.

If the federal govt. were to spend $4 tn. on healthcare annually, that would be equal to the total amount spent currently (~19% of GDP). To put that in perspective, that's quadruple what the British govt. spent (£150 bn.) on healthcare in 2017 as a proportion of GDP (~5%)

Ah, I see. It's a bit of a monday for me. And yeah, RAND's estimates on healthcare are pretty generous. I think it's really charitable to assume that Medicare for All will simply transfer most costs from the private tot the public sector. In the short-term, at the very least, I'd expect costs to skyrocket as the industry adjusts.

Regarding energy investments, I'm not too bothered. It'll be interesting to see how the policy manifests itself, but I'd have to see the specifics of the legislation. This, is a little too vague.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know?" Sanders said on CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview that aired Sunday. "When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/polit...uba/index.html

The man simply can’t help himself. His supporters won’t care, any more than Trump’s did when the latter eagerly, gratefully and submissively serviced KGB officer Putin in front of the entire world. Nevertheless, it’s a sad state of affairs when every conceivable candidate for POTUS, be it Bloomberg, Sanders or Trump, has routinely prostrated themselves before foreign despots.

[Akar]

I really hate this era where if you support any of a person's policies you by default endorse the entirety of their political career. Do I support Castro's dictatorial regime? No. Do I support his literacy programs and medical internationalism? Most definitely. Cuba has sent thousands of doctors to countries all over the world to respond to their health crises, from Ebola to war zones. Are we really at a point where we're so far up our own asses we can't manage to agree with our opponents when they're right?

[Lord Thesaurian]

There are lots of examples of literacy programs and sending doctors abroad other than communist Cuba. Sanders has a long history of aggressively supporting Soviet and Latin American socialism for his own personal ideological reasons. His response on 60 minutes was supposed to be a defense of his record, but instead he doubled down. Socialism is bad. Communism is bad. The CCP is bad. Putin’s Russia is bad. America is good. If you don’t think so, you shouldn’t be president. Period. Full stop. And so far, that metric disqualifies at least 3 leading candidates for POTUS.

[Akar]

What an absurd thing to disqualify a president for. Why don't we just say that anyone who doesn't agree with you can't run?